Paul...That was an excellent use of the Alinsky personalising and destroying tactic on Horrible Newt. Congratulations. But does what Newt said have any comments from you? He is re-stating the heart of American foreign policy thought for the last 60 years. Is it wrong or is it right? Switzerland has their answer. What is a good answer for an American President?

Alinsky references, blah, blah, blah. Excuses for the fact that paul is right and you are clueless, trad guy. Right on Paul. Wouldn't listen to Gingrich recite his own name. He is a philandering loser who has no credibility with any group.

Alinsky references, blah, blah, blah. Excuses for the fact that paul is right and you are clueless, trad guy. Right on Paul. Wouldn't listen to Gingrich recite his own name. He is a philandering loser who has no credibility with any group.

When in doubt, use the Alinsky excuse.

More blah, blah, blah from an Alinskyite. We see through your game. Try on some other blog.

So how does a Republican/Conservative get back into good graces. Is it the therapeutic route: (i.e. a sort of conservative principle rehabilitation program followed by daily counseling with Chris Chocola and gradual re-introduction into the Conservative mainstream

Or is it a penal approach: (i.e. banishment to the political hinterlands, like say NY 20, surviving only with brief exchanges of political opinions with low level campaign workers but ultimately liberated to rejoin the political mainstream.)

These Carter = Obama equations do bring us back to the election. Maybe we were all fools not to see the comissar in young Obama but the country was not about to elect another doddering, semi-articulate republican. McCain, well, it was a vanity excercise that should not have happened. Whatever fire he had facing down the Vietnamese thugs, decades later he couldn't stand up to the ladies of "The View." And that was that. OK so now we have a Carter. We'll survive.

Newt is an unpleasant man that has few friends. So should we ban him? He serves the useful purpose by making more personable conservative seem likable in comparison. Can you imagine newt as a Supreme Court Justice? He would dissent all the time.When will he learn to read the Talking Points and not try to write his own?

The W. years showed that the Rs are far more skilled at being the party out of power than the party in power, where cutting tax rates is their lone idea and sole accomplishment. They are born kibitzers.

Paul a Barge ...You are welcome. The Bully in the school yard theory has been American for a long time. The academy award movie High Noon is an explicit theatrical presentation of it. In the end the fed up Sheriff left town. Is that what Obama's foreign policy is doing? In the Middle-east the conquest tipping point is all that they talk about..."The strong Horse attracts followers/allies and the Weak Horse loses followers/allies and ends up killed off" ...says wisdom among those oil rich Moslems. Maybe after we sell back Alaska to Russia and sell California to China we can line in peace with Grace Kelly. Oh nevermind, we already sold her to Monaco.

Other than a closing quote, this article has everything to do with the President and nothing to do with Gingrich.

While the rabid partisan in us may revel at Obama's glaring failures, the American in us remembers that his failures, at least in the foreign policy stage, are all our failures. Our country is diminished in prestige, and can no longer even influence its historic allies. What hope do we have then of influencing our enemies?

The world has changed since the early 70s. If the US tries to be the big dog, all we get is endless criticism about "3rd world rights" from Euroweenies and ACLU sorts safe behind the walls we man.

With our industry shipped to China to enrich a few Ruling Elites, and America in decline and now a wastrel debtor nation...perhaps it is time to step down from a few of those walls and see what happens.

Russia - we want to make those foolish Greenie weenies our energy bitches.USA - Fine with us. Slap the bitches around. We won't lift a finger.

Human Rights Lawyers - What are you doing to save noble brown skinned people from abuse in Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Sulawese, Nigeria, Rwanda, the Congo! the Congo! So we can condemn you for abuses like in Iraq and Afghanistan and Serbia. You can't do nothing! USA - Nothing is exactly what we will do. Best you lawyers start doing your own gun practice and learn how to parachute in, because we won't.

Spanish President - Why has the US been negligent in protecting Spanish merchant ships from Somali pirates?USA - Good luck protecting your own.

Israeli Settlers - When will the US join us in ridding our new lands of the pesky locals who kill us each time we put up a new Settlement. Where is the money and arms from America we demand?USA - Money? Arms? Our knee-jerk support for whatever Our Special Friend demands? Gone. As your espionage rings in the USA soon will be.

His "Townhall meeting" discourse was cringe-worthy for me. I just don't know what to say about Barack Obama, after listening to him repeatedly bow, scrape, and ask forgiveness in all but name, for America's many arrogant moments.

Start at minute 26:15 to 30:00. He talks about America's lack of uniqueness and how many women in America would complain about how men have old-fashioned ideas about women in society.

...the height of irony, considering how he tacitly allowed his supporters to handle Hillary Clinton and later, Sarah Palin.

I don't know what was worse: Carter's Christian sermonising or Obama's moral relativism.

I know you're not preaching complete isolationism, but since the thought occurred to me and I've heard a lot of people online and off make the point of pulling back everywhere.

Isolationism in today’s world is a certain Siren’s Call for the libertarian-minded. I fall victim to it myself each time something ridiculous happens in the world. The problem with isolationism, now or back when we tried it in the early 20th, is that the weaker nations will either turn to someone else or be swallowed by them. I’ve long been for closing down all but the most absolutely necessary military installations around the world (not including Marine detachments at embassies which some isolationists cite when counting U.S. military bases around the world), but there’s yet another double-edge sword. Does a decade of American military contraction make us more secure or less? Does pulling back from everywhere make our own borders secure or send the wrong message to people that can come by weapons that don’t necessarily respect standing armies at the wall (such as EMP-equipped fishing or cargo ships)?

I don’t know the exact answer to all of this, but I’m sure it’s NOT isolationism.

Exactly - if the world would just sort of carry on, then I would say no big deal. The fear is that lacking any American leadership, the nations of the world will find alternate leadership, and we will find them all lined up against the US. China, Russia and others make no distinction between foreign, commercial, military and industrial policies.

lacking any American leadership, the nations of the world will find alternate leadership

I’m not so sure American leadership is even necessary anymore. If we do pull back, let it be from the leadership ROLE, but we absolutely have to remain at the big-kids table. Frankly, calling the US president the leader of the free world simply rings hollow to me these days, current resident having nothing to do with the sentiment.

In a nutshell, I see the genesis of most of our current problems directly related, like everything else, to WWII. We came through WWII relatively unscathed. We enjoyed unparalleled prosperity afterward because most of the modern, industrialized world was in rubble. This prosperity led directly to the rise of an entire generation that didn’t know anything about real strife outside having to duck and cover every once and a while during a school drill. Don’t give me campus and race riots. The overwhelming majority of the post-war American public was becoming fatter, dumber, and, yes, happier.

The American people are resilient and remain strong, even though we’ve allowed a generation of Boomers to browbeat excellence into a shabby, stinky closet under the stairs. Such strength cannot long be kept down and I’m betting the next ten years will see a revival of the very strength we all know we possess.

I do not give President Obama and his ilk on the left enough credit to ruin our country or our people completely.

The list of W.'s accomplishments is no longer on whitehouse.gov. Can you refresh my memory?

You mean like bringing down Saddam and the Taliban, keeping the country safe after 9/11? Those accomplishments?

Actually, I was referring to the crack about the Republicans and the party in power. Yeah, we'd rather have the Demos - ruin the country, make like Neville Chamberlain with the world, and play let's make a deal in the process.

Just to toss in another Carter=Obama reference, they both put the kibosh on recycling nuclear fuel.

Back in 1977 Carter banned the reprocessing of nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. (At the end of the fuel cycle lots of yummy fissionable material is still there, but so are poisons created in the process that capture neutrons and stop the atom splitting. Reprocessing removes the poisons so we can recycle the fuel.) The fission process also creates plutonium and Carter was concerned about proliferation. You see, Jimmy Carter believed in leading by example. If we stopped recycling maybe other countries would follow our lead, and all that scary plutonium would remain in a deadly unusable matrix. Didn't happen.

The two plants about to come on-line in '77 meant hundreds of millions of investment dollars down the tube. This was back when millions of dollars was real money.

Reagan lifted the ban in '81 but who in their right minds would invest at that point?

Recently DOE was working on an international program initiated under Bush to go with a process that wouldn't separate out the plutonium, but the Obama Administration stopped it in July.

Just saying. And regretfully noting Iran isn't playing any more games than we are.

It could be said that Franklin Pierce had little business being President, but in a nation fragmenting over slavery, only a bland, affable political lightweight was palatable to the electorate....

Pierce's leadership lacked the strength and tenacity of a Jackson or a Lincoln. As a result, tumultuous events simply overwhelmed him and he was sometimes dominated by forceful politicians like Stephen Douglas. For most historians, Pierce is viewed as an inept chief executive whose traditional style of leadership failed in the face of the massive electoral divisions over slavery and the aggressiveness of southerners....

Mmm, makes me think of the last case of massive cognitive dissonance. Carter tried to deal with the iran hostage deal for ages, and then when reagan was elected, bam, they released them right away. Conservatives took this as proof positive that strength works.

And then liberals came up with their crazy conspiracy theory, that reagan or bush sr. somehow stopped the iranians from releasing the hostages in october, which would have supposedly saved the carter presidency. i guess things never change.

"You mean like bringing down Saddam and the Taliban, keeping the country safe after 9/11? Those accomplishments?"

Who said Saddam needed "bringing down?" He was no threat to us and our invasion of his country to topple his government was illegal...a war crime. And, in any case, is it an accomplishment when a tank takes out a man with a sling shot?

No.

As for the other blah de blah, is that Taliban that you say Bush "brought down" a different Taliban than the one currently playing havoc with us in Afghanistan? And again, who says we had a legal right or national defense justification even to try to bring them down?

"Keeping us safe?" Heck, I could claim that achievement for myself: Hey, America! We haven't had an attack on our soil by dirty furrin terrists for eight years, and it's all because of the super-double-top-secret anti-enemy missions I knocked off in my off time all these past few years.

I've got as much right to claim it as Bush. More, because I didn't torture and imprison people, and murder shitloads of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus fueling further hatred of America.

Bush's real accomplishments had to do with futhering the destruction of our goverment, and spreading death and misery and poverty around the world and here at home. So far, Obama seems to favor carrying on Bush's mission.

"And then liberals came up with their crazy conspiracy theory, that reagan or bush sr. somehow stopped the iranians from releasing the hostages in october, which would have supposedly saved the carter presidency. i guess things never change."

Journalist Seymore Hersh investigated the allegation that the Reagan campaign promised to sell Iran weapons if they held onto the hostages until election day and found no evidence of such a deal.

As he pointed out, if the Reagan Administration had sold weapons to Iran as the deal allegedly involved, those weapons would have shown up on the battlefied during the Iran-Iraq war. And the arms sellers whom Hersh interviewed all stated that no such weapons showed up.

They knew because it was their livelihood to keep track of such deals.

" Montagne Montaigne said...I smile every time I see an Obama=Carter comparison from some poor benighted Republican sap.

Because Obama is the Democratic Reagan. And Obama will be here until 2016. Poor Republicans.

11/23/09 10:42 AM"

Lets see if you are still smiling this time next year.More likely outcome Obama is not re-elected and there won't be a progressive democrat elected president for at least 20 years after Obama. Like LBJ.

Man, that guy is a veritable bastion of risk-taking and aggressive posture, isn't he?

I mean, Newt Gingrich is Dede Scozzafava's bee-yotch.

And now he's all up in Carter and Obama's face? Newt? He who can't get elected to class clown at this point in his wretched career?

Puh-leeze.

11/23/09 10:00 AM"

While Newt is not the shinning example of what he ought be judging by his preaching, we may agree on disliking the messenger but that does not detract one bit from the correctness of the message. As for Carter, at the rate this idiot and his merry pranksters in congress are going, they will elevate Carter from the worst president in the last 60 years to second worst president. We will be lucky if all we suffer going forward is a second Carter Administration.

---------------------------------------" former law student said...Nobody radiates weakness more than a Republican in Congress.

The W. years showed that the Rs are far more skilled at being the party out of power than the party in power, where cutting tax rates is their lone idea and sole accomplishment. They are born kibitzers.

11/23/09 10:53 AM"

Cutting taxes is always a good idea. The thing republicans need to master is cutting spending.We don't need more programs and more spending and more government employees. We need less less spending, less government employees and less programs. Firing 1/3 of the federal civilian workforce would be a good start along with the rest getting 1/3 pay,benefits and pension cuts.

We warned the idiot Dems during the primary. They would not listen -- they(DNC/media/Obots) had to cheat, steal, and carry him over the finish line and this is what we get now:Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared.

And Victoria, I watched a video snippet of the Townhall meeting where he was repeating Hillary's lines about how educating women and girls was important to the progress of a society. He is like a parrot -- he picks/steals the good lines from others and spews them. They don't come from with in.

Lem - I'm alluding to the bigger "I don't give a shit about anything" syndrome that afflicts 99.9% of Americans, but only 47% of Western Europeans. It goes back up to 99.99999% for Eastern Europeans and Russians.

Jeremy@ 2:31...Good questions that need a better answer than Bush gave us. But so far Obama has been Bush's stand in on the acts he has taken compared to his rhetoric. So where do we draw the line now? Just north of Nebraska and east of Pittsburg. The gathering of armies needs an answer without awaiting the next UN General Assembly's vote sold to the highest bidder. I also hear that there will be another Olympic Sport in Rio called Surrendering First to Save the Most Money on the Military. Obama is a favorite for the world record, but he is on the Kenyan Team since he feels that the Homefolks need some glory too.

I love reading all of the "tough" guy comments here about how President Obama is somehow "surrendering" because he's actually taking the time to research and discuss options relating to Afghanistan.

The local Althouse wing nut chickenhawks seem to think President Obama shuld just dive right in there without first taking the time to properly discuss and evaluate options...as Bush did.

Well, do you idiots also consider this guy to be just another "surrender" guy?:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Sunday said that the United States has faced difficulties in the Afghanistan conflict because the Bush administration did not have the same kind of "comprehensive strategy" that President Barack Obama does for the nation.

"I will tell you, I think that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s," he told CNN. "And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan."

Talk is cheap, and if you fools are so big on getting things done: WHY NOT ENLIST?

You really need to loose the mindset that calling out President Obama on this or that equates to agreeing with Bush on this or that. Try stepping outside that narrow point of view as it appears that have a very Us vs Them attitude about all of this fluff.

In all seriousness, you're going to be hard-pressed to find someone who's less of a GWB fan than I am. On the other hand, increasingly, you're not going to have too much trouble finding people that, in growing numbers apparently, aren't too thrilled with the current resident of 1600 Penn Ave.

Jeremy...There is nothing worth holding an Afghanistan. So why hasn't Barack the Thinker already thought of that? For the same reason Bush stayed since 2001...the allies in the Area need us there. The strategic location can be done without, but the allies need our strengthening presence for now. That is the surrender or not surrender decision that Obama/Hamlet is deeply commited to thinking about for at least another 8 months. Blaming it on the deficit is a very smart chess move.

I can see you didn't infer I was relating to Gates, so I'll answer you directly. I don't have any trouble with what Gates said about our troops in Teh Stan. Why? Because having served, I disagreed with our entire operation there from start to today. Not with the stated goal, but how we were going about doing it...and doing it on the cheap.

I have very serious doubts that this president is going to change that point of view as I have very serious doubts that he is going to commit the kind of forces necessary, both ours and getting our allies to pony up, that it would require to finally do the job properly.

Both of the above address my disdain for GWB's approach and what I've seen so far from BHO.

What I will call him out on is first declaring that teh stan is where we're supposed to be, saying on the campaign trail that he had a plan, and then waffling like he's doing.

...by the middle to end of 2010, we'll be out of Iraq, with much less of a presence in Afghanistan and the economy will be steady. (No citation of authority available for unjustifiable speculation.)

Lem, you really need to bone up on your grammar, spelling and content.

When you get a chance, watch this (painful) video of Princess Sarh's fans trying to explain why they think she's Presidential material.

Kent - .... How old are you? Twelve?

Well, do you idiots also consider this guy to be just another "surrender" guy?:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Sunday said that the United States has faced difficulties in the Afghanistan conflict because the Bush administration did not have the same kind of "comprehensive strategy" that President Barack Obama does for the nation.

... I notice no one has the balls or intellect to counter what Mr. Gates had to say.

Well, okay. How about this:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday it would be a "strategic mistake" for the U.S. to put a timeline or exit strategy on its presence in Afghanistan -- a position that appears to put him at direct odds with [President Surrender Monkey].

That was tough!

WV "joisms" = Shorthand for "jerkoffisms," e.g., Jeremy is back with the usual "joisms."

Scott M "Jeremy, You really need to loose the mindset that calling out President Obama on this or that equates to agreeing with Bush on this or that."

Yeah, right.

People say President Obama is somehow "surrendering" when he does what any thinking person with his kind of authority and responsibility should do; think before you act. Discuss the ramifications of your actions BEFORE acting.

There is little doubt this strategy is directly based in what we saw over the 8 years Bush and company ran roughshod over anyone who disagreed. (And the Obama approval ratings are no different that Ronald Reagan's at the same strike point in their administrations so your insinuation that one wouldn't have much "trouble finding people that, in growing numbers apparently, aren't too thrilled with the current resident of 1600 Penn Ave" is ridiculous. (Unless of course, you also thought Reagan was a complete failure so early in his first term. DID YOU?)

President Obama is doing the right thing at the right time and just as in the case of previous administrations, if he screws up, we have elections planned for 2010 andthe Democrats out of office and him out of the Presidency.

The constant second-guessing and whining and bitching about his every move after only 10 months is disingenuous, embarrassing and really unAmerican...especially considering the latitude afforded President Bush. Right now the GOP is nothing more than obstructionists, hoping Obama fails on every front, and it's going to bite them in the ass if the economy and the middle east situations become more manageable.

And please...don't even begin to imply 90% of the people who post here didn't vote for and support Bush...twice...because you know that would be a crock.

Hombre - "Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday it would be a "strategic mistake" for the U.S. to put a timeline or exit strategy on its presence in Afghanistan -- a position that appears to put him at direct odds with [President Surrender Monkey]."

Show me where President Obama has "put a timeline or exit strategy on its presence in Afghanistan."

Scott - "I have very serious doubts that this president is going to change that point of view as I have very serious doubts that he is going to commit the kind of forces necessary, both ours and getting our allies to pony up, that it would require to finally do the job properly."

I have no idea if committing more and more troops is the right thing to do. We've been through this in Vietnam and you know how well that worked out. (And please, none of the "oh, we could've won if we had just put more and more troops on the ground." That's a theory that has been roundly disproved...just as the Afghanistan strategy of more troops might, too.)

I think he and many others (myself included) think we should get out and leave the country to those who live there.

I scout through comments and posts here and see nothing but the usual badmouthing of Obama, as though those who supported Bush have a positive message for us. Is it possible to stop badmouthing and say something positive, useful, something suggesting plans, ideas?

Seems the onlyh thing left out in these grade-school Nadas is "it isn't fair."

I voted for President Obama and want him to succeed. I also think Bush was a cowardly President who put Americans in harm's way in a quest to secure the oil fields in Iraq. I also hid out during much of what was supposed to be service to my country.

When I mentioned people posting under my moniker, I meant that they posted garbage, especially rather disgusting elements relating to pedophilia, that I found to be beyond the pale.

Arguing about politics is one thing and I welcome any form of rebuttal, especially when one can actually provide objective links to statements or articles that support their side of the fight (unlike elHombre - 4:57 PM - posting an article from 2 months ago that basically says Gates and Obama may not be on the same page, but does NOT say anything about Obama establishing any real timelines.)

Keep in mind, anyone can post, just as I did with "miller" anywhere on the internet...and if you think people will be able to readily distinguish who is who...you're dreaming.

"Show me where President Obama has "put a timeline or exit strategy on its presence in Afghanistan."

And you direct us to a link from 2 months ago, with Gates saying a timeline would be a mistake. There's nothing in the article that says Obama has set any timelines.

So what the fuck is your point? That Gates and Obama may disagree on future strategy or that your reading comprehension is lacking?

I've never said people don't disagree with Obama about all kinds of things, but intimating via your link that he's setting timelines is disingenuous and pure bullshit.

I also see you're evidently having a tough time conjuring up a counter to this:

Gates - "I will tell you, I think that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s," he told CNN. "And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan."

If Obama is a "surrender monkey"...your thoroughly racist bullshit term...why does Mr. Gates say such nice things about his "strategy?"

I'm sorry you're so obtuse, but then, you can't seem to pick one name and stick with it.

Yes, I'm aware that there might be more than one person with the name of miller in world. I read the Intertubes, too.

Perhaps you might consider that in the context of this blog that what I post is known well enough that when you spoof my name and post your own thoughts that the attempts are childish and easily discoverable.

What makes you think I don't know the costs of the war? I noticed you did not dispute what I said.

Obama was the one who said the war in Afghanistan was the important war. He has spent weeks making a decision that could have, should have, been made in days. Anything more than a week or two shows that in reality, Afghanistan is just not that high a priority to Obama. There is nothing in Afghanistan that changed in the last month or two that should have changed the plan. And yes I know about the election. Corruption would have been a problem no matter who was elected.

Did I think Bush was perfect, hell no. Did I agree with every decision he made, hell no. But when he didn't like the options presented to him on Afghanistan he made them give him new ones in days. If Obama is so much better than Bush then why couldn't he do the same thing?

Wasn't Obama the one who claimed the surge in Iraq would not work? Oh right, I bet you still don't think that worked.

miller - "Perhaps you might consider that in the context of this blog that what I post is known well enough that when you spoof my name and post your own thoughts that the attempts are childish and easily discoverable."

No kidding?

How about if I hit a few others and use your moniker?

Would you like that?

I doubt it.

As for yours and the others insane obsession with monikers...isn't that just a way of avoiding an actual objective rebuttal to real comments or points that I've made?

I've asked about Gate's quote about Obama and also made it plain that Obama has never set a timetable for leaving Afghanistan, yet all I read is silly and childish drivel relating to names.

If everyone is so intent upon real names, etc...why do 99% use monikers? Why not post their names, addresses and telephone numbers?

I assume you realize that allowing certain people to know who you are could create some real problems.

Swan - "Did I think Bush was perfect, hell no. Did I agree with every decision he made, hell no. But when he didn't like the options presented to him on Afghanistan he made them give him new ones in days."

Where do you come up with that? You're saying Bush immediately pivoted when presented options?We've been in Afghanistan for eight fucking years. We invaded Iraq instead of going into Afghanistan to hunt Bin Laden down...and you're going to tell me Bush was good at taking advice and making the right decisions?

And just think if Bush had done what you say he was good at...like when he got a message saying Bin Laden was intent upon attacking America before 9/11.

And, once again - GATES: "I will tell you, I think that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s," he told CNN. "And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan."

You can whine and bitch about Obama all you want, but we all know how we got here, and exactly who was at the switch when it all got started.

I know you're not preaching complete isolationism, but since the thought occurred to me and I've heard a lot of people online and off make the point of pulling back everywhere

******************I don't advocate pulling back everywhere. But our present overextended condition and fatigue with "endless wars" makes it highly worth rethinking certain memes. I am not worried that each and every overcommitment we have made will cause a "power vacuum" and bad guys will fill it if we dare leave.

Or if we don't take the lead and pay 90-95% of the cost of each global humanitarian crisis "we will lose our moral leadership".

Enough.

And right now you have far too many conservatives trapped in the meme that we owe troops to every troubled land and leaving any buttfuck little shithole, anywhere..."would be a sign of weakness". And too many conservatives trapped in the 9/11 meme that we Can only be absolutely, absolutely safe if we invade, occupy and control any country that "might become a safe haven for evildoers but for the 100 billion and several hundred deaths we take to "nationbuild the ungrateful locals".Well, the Bush call that this would be an easy cakewalk and grateful Muslims galore the world over would love us - has hit the fan.Maybe neocons didn't flinch when military commanders said we could be in Afghanistan for the next 30-40 years creating a modern nation with hopefully the killing and maiming of Americans winding down in another 5 years or so, with 100 billion a year in cost....because we can never afford to have Afghanistan become a sanctuary for a few thousand "hardened Jihadis"

But the public's jaw dropped.

And I don't think even the Religious Right fools that were feeding out of neocons hands 7 years ago like the call of zealots for new major "nation-building" wars with Iran, Somalia, Saving the Noble Darfurans with troops, and showing the NORKS whats what if the Chinese will loan us money for that war (which they won't)

Jeremy, Wow, we invaded Iraq before we invaded Afghanistan. The new things you learn every day. By the way, putting more troops in Afghanistan won't help find Bin Laden. Most experts put him in Pakistan. But hey why let facts get in the way, IT IS ALL BUSH's FAULT. Nice canard by the way, Bush not doing something for 6 weeks is a disaster (not true by the way), and Obama taking a couple of months is being responsible. Why do I get the impression if Afghanistan (among other things) are bad in November of 2012 you will still be blaming Bush.

I will put it down simply so you can understand. Bush sat down with his advisors. They presented him with options. He did not like those options. He asked for more. A couple of days later they gave him more. This did not takes weeks or months. The Taliban lost control of Afghanistan in about 2 months. How long has Obama been thinking about new strategy?

By the way, why would you expect Gates to say anything different. Oh I have also heard that Obama's March plan was actually developed by the idiotic Bush Administration, just so you can blame Bush for the need for a new one less than seven months later.

Jeremy wrote at 3:29: Well, do you idiots also consider this guy to be just another "surrender" guy?:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Sunday said that the United States has faced difficulties in the Afghanistan conflict because the Bush administration did not have the same kind of "comprehensive strategy" that President Barack Obama does for the nation.

And at 3:51: ... I notice no one has the balls or intellect to counter what Mr. Gates had to say.

Your point was obviously that Gates was endorsing Obama's strategy, so I wrote at 4:27:

Well, okay. How about this:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday it would be a "strategic mistake" for the U.S. to put a timeline or exit strategy on its presence in Afghanistan -- a position that appears to put him at direct odds with [President Surrender Monkey].

The link quoted Gates and cited Obama's transcript from 60 Minutes, showing that Gates may have acknowledged that Obama's strategy was "comprehensive", but that he does not necessarily endorse it.

And Jeremy wrote at 5:49: And you direct us to a link from 2 months ago, with Gates saying a timeline would be a mistake. There's nothing in the article that says Obama has set any timelines. So what the fuck is your point? That Gates and Obama may disagree on future strategy ....

Jeremy whined to Miller (6:12): But, as I said before; you never respond to the content of my comments, you just keep regurgitating the same sad bullshit most of the other wing nuts here splash on the page.

Actually, when Jeremy is proved wrong, which is often, he just ignores, lies or offers up red herrings, such as (5:49) ...

The red herring: If Obama is a "surrender monkey"...your thoroughly racist bullshit term...

Google "surrender monkey." It has nothing to do with race. This is race baiting, pure and simple.

The lie: ...why does Mr. Gates say such nice things about [Obama's] "strategy?"

Gates said it was "comprehensive." If I say Jeremy's sock puppetry of Democrat talking points is comprehensive, is that nice?

Moreover, he works for Obama now. Do we expect criticism?

Take away Jeremy's insults, lies and logical fallacies and only he is left -- nothing.

And right now you have far too many conservatives trapped in the meme that we owe troops to every troubled land and leaving any buttfuck little shithole, anywhere..."would be a sign of weakness".And too many conservatives trapped in the 9/11 meme...

First of all, you didn't address my original point. Criticizing President Obama does NOT equal supporting Bush's approach to the same issue, whatever the issue may be.

And then...you went and really jumped the shark.

The constant second-guessing and whining and bitching about his every move after only 10 months is disingenuous, embarrassing and really unAmerican...especially considering the latitude afforded President Bush.

Second-guessing, whining and bitching is pretty much what a healthy democracy is all about. Read up on the pamphleteers circa 1770's. Further, it's apparently only a problem because you're guy is in the White House. I particularly love the line about the "latitude" afforded President Bush.

LOL

The country was completely split over the way the 2000 elections ended up. Every little thing Bush did was answered by the left with "selected, not elected". If you don't remember that, you have a serious problem. The only "latitude" that Bush was "afforded" was immediately after 9/11 and he was only "afforded" "latitude" because his detractors saw it as horrendously costly, politically, to criticize the illegitimate Bushie presidency in the wake of the attacks.

And this was long before Iraq or Teh Stan ever started.

The fact that you would even suggest that Bush was ever "afforded" any kind of "latitude" out so some pseudo-decency you incorrectly remember on the part of the left goes to show just how high over that shark you've gone.

Scott - Bush was indeed granted great "latitude" right up until the point where it became obvious he, Rummy, Cheney and others had never considered the fact that there would be an aftermath to the initial invasion of Iraq.

I suggest you read "Fiasco" and get back to me.

You appear to be one of the few on this blog that can take it and dish it out without losing their frigging minds over the fact that someone has the audacity to disagree or have an alternative opinion.

I appreciate the sentiment, but my goal is not to take it or dish it out. I find myself becoming more and more militant about the level of discourse itself, regardless of the content.

You didn't address my original point, again. Disagreeing with Obama does NOT equal agreeing with Bush (or anyone else on the right) on the same issue.

You also didn't address my point about the very large microscope Bush was forced under in his first ten months. Affording a president, any president, some room to lead after something like 9/11 is the right thing to do, even if you're only doing it for political reasons. I, personally, had no problems with the opening phase of the war. I have the same issues most clear-thinking people do with the Bush administration's lack of planning and wanting to fight the war on the cheap. What I have an equally big problem with, though, is the left's congressional conduct after 2006. Non-binding resolutions, anti-surge, we've lost the war, civil war, etc etc. All as much bullshit in hindsight as Bush's handling of the war itself...the military part of it, not the geopolitical.

Next to lastly, you didn't comment on my counter-point about what is considered anti-American.

And lastly, all previous administrations aside (for once), what you have is an American president who is in office at a very critical time in our history. Combine the economic crisis with our own culture's ongoing maturing relationship with online media and a seemingly awakening center-right polity. All of these things add up to President Obama being under more scrutiny than we're used to.

miller - "You also didn't address my point about the very large microscope Bush was forced under in his first ten months."

Bush's problems in the first months were directly related to how he got elected...ya think??

Show me when the Supreme COurt has ever, in our nation's history, stepped in to make the kind of decision they made in Florida? Whether the election was stolen is another argument, but when a conservatively balanced Supreme Court steps in to hand the election to a conservative nominee...there might be problems.

But, with that said, YOU didn't respond to the bigger point: That being Bush afforded great latitude and approval...9/11 helped out...right up until he blew the aftermath planning in Iraq.

Anyone, at this stage who defends Bush & Company's performance before and after going into Iraq needs to read more and talk less.

As to your other point that: "Disagreeing with Obama does NOT equal agreeing with Bush (or anyone else on the right) on the same issue."

Oh, really? So you think the predominant bitching and whining you read here every day of the week relating to literally every move on President Obama's part...doesn't relate in any way to the past support of Bush and the GOP?

Give-me-a-break.

Show me one single comment by any of the locals (other than the few semi-liberals/independents who drop by...and there are about 3-4 of 'em)...that provides any support or approval of anything President Obama has done...ever.

Tell me all about Bush's "plan" before going into Iraq...and how he stuck to it, never changing course or reevaluating the situations or advice rendered.

Are you saying that if President Obama says he has a plan, it cannot be changed or altered...regardless of the circumstances?

And, as of today, I've already read articles indicating President Obama is now considering sending in 34,000 more troops, with the understanding that the "plan" is based on not just gaining control, but pushing the Afghans to handle matters on their own at some point. (Iraq?)

So that appears to provide the best of both worlds - the wing nuts get more troops - the liberals get some kind of potential timetable.

Now get the locals together and start bitching and whining about that.

I'm still waiting, since wading into this quagmire with you, to admit that it's possible to disagree with President Obama without having supported Bush on the same issue. I've asked multiple times and you've refused to admit that's possible.